Re: Glyph Stance
Rick McGowan Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:18 PM > Bob Richmond discussed... > > > Recap. Michaels 'n1944' proposal for Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Unicode > > (1999) > > Just FYI, the control codes were a rather controversial feature of that > proposal. It would also be worth surveying (again) the use of controls in > existing Egyptian implementations. > Thanks for the background. Schemes in use have not changed much since the proposal was written. A new opportunity (as yet unused) is the OpenType feature set although OS support is slow in getting out to users - I'm doing an experimental PUA implementation to evaluate how this can simplify the uses of control codes/markup but will take some time before I have any firm conclusions. I'll be happy to write a summary of control code issues this summer when have time. > > I understand the UTC position was in favour of coding a basic > > (partial-Gardiner) character set but deferring the larger corpus > > and control elements. This would have been useful and fine to > > build on incrementally but IMO 5 years on, it is not only > > possible but highly desirable to go further than this. > > UTC at last check was still in favor of encoding the Gardiner set, minus > control codes, just as soon as someone is able to come up with a revised > proposal for the 700+ characters. Funding and time are the current > inhibitors to work on the proposal, as I understand it. And I'm afraid at > this point, Egyptian is nowhere near being encoded. > > Rick > I'm aware of and supportive of SEI activities. I've also recently completed a survey into around 400 additional characters beyond the 700+. This selection is based on the complete Gardiner font (the usually quoted 700+ is based on the subset given in 'Egyptian Grammar' sign index), popular textbooks and definite user requirements (mainly, but not entirely focussed on Middle rather than Old or Late Egyptian). These extensions to basic Gardiner were open to public feedback, not just a personal selection. It is interesting to note there are a number of significant signs not given in Hieroglyphica (a very useful work but particularly influenced by the Ptolemaic period and later when there was an explosion of new signs) used in Michaels list. From this experience, I'm convinced current mainstream user requirements go beyond the 'Gardiner set' yet the extended set (as given in the proposal) is also inappropriate. Hence my comment above. Incidentally. Apart from the control characters, what problems did UTC have with the proposal for the 700+ that need to be addressed in a revision? Bob Richmond Saqqara Technology
Re: Glyph Stance
Bob Richmond discussed... > Recap. Michaels 'n1944' proposal for Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Unicode > (1999) Just FYI, the control codes were a rather controversial feature of that proposal. It would also be worth surveying (again) the use of controls in existing Egyptian implementations. > I understand the UTC position was in favour of coding a basic > (partial-Gardiner) character set but deferring the larger corpus > and control elements. This would have been useful and fine to > build on incrementally but IMO 5 years on, it is not only > possible but highly desirable to go further than this. UTC at last check was still in favor of encoding the Gardiner set, minus control codes, just as soon as someone is able to come up with a revised proposal for the 700+ characters. Funding and time are the current inhibitors to work on the proposal, as I understand it. And I'm afraid at this point, Egyptian is nowhere near being encoded. Rick
Re: Glyph Stance
RE: Glyph Stance - Original Message - From: Mike Ayers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:12 AM Subject: RE: Glyph Stance > Thinking about script rotation generically fundamentally requires > debating abstracts. Perhaps you would be better served by > expressing your direct needs. True, although abstraction, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I shall not use the P-word here but we have recently seen a debating game in this list. A poor substitute for a well-researched counter-proposal for comment IMO. > Consider my response to be my way of pointing out that > anyone who wishes to declare glyph mirroring and rotation > to be apropos for modern scripts will need a solid case. > I'm not fundamentally opposed to these things, but any > movement or blurring (further blurring?) of the line > between plain text and marked up text really should > be absolutely necessary. Fully agree > ...As you get some time, perhaps you could inform us > on issues directly related to hieroglyphics. I would be > most interested. or should I perhaps be checking the archives? Pleased to. Recap. Michaels 'n1944' proposal for Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Unicode (1999) is a good introduction to some of the issues involved. The control codes there (pp 19-20) include mirroring and are simply transcription into Unicode of current Latin computer transliteration conventions for Egyptian. This proposal was regarded as controversial at the time not only because of the technical problems associated with control codes. Some commentators called into question the wisdom of encoding Egyptian at all. Others were unhappy about a character set based on the Hieroglyphica catalogue, although happy to a degree with the notion of starting with the more limited 'BASIC' subset. Issues like collation tread unfamiliar territory. I understand the UTC position was in favour of coding a basic (partial-Gardiner) character set but deferring the larger corpus and control elements. This would have been useful and fine to build on incrementally but IMO 5 years on, it is not only possible but highly desirable to go further than this. My own conclusion is to move forward, a testbed PUA/OpenType font implementation combined with a model XML presentation layer is needed to illustrate and resolve issues and establish consensus support among the potential user base. Action not more words. Collation needs to be addressed and I can forsee problems here. Done most of the groundwork already but suspect will be into next year before I can make available a full set of material for useful discussion of Egyptian in this forum. Meanwhile happy to hear from anyone with an interest or help in discussion of any related topics that arise meanwhile. Bob Richmond Saqqara Technology
RE: Glyph Stance
Title: RE: Glyph Stance > From: saqqara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:34 PM > My original reply was about the question of ancient scripts that used > alternate glyph poses - I suggested this issue is worth thinking about > generically, not just on a proposal by proposal basis for individual > scripts. As one of the small number actively working on software for > Egyptian scripts and in contact with that user community, I have a > practical interest in appropriate plain text representations rather than > a desire to debate abstracts. Thinking about script rotation generically fundamentally requires debating abstracts. Perhaps you would be better served by expressing your direct needs. > I'm not very interested personally in the application to modern scripts, > the mention of Latin mirroring in advertising was to point out that it > *may* also be an issue for anyone who is. Consider my response to be my way of pointing out that anyone who wishes to declare glyph mirroring and rotation to be apropos for modern scripts will need a solid case. I'm not fundamentally opposed to these things, but any movement or blurring (further blurring?) of the line between plain text and marked up text really should be absolutely necessary. > Your opinions below on the semantics of non-standard typography and the > purpose of advertising - as you indicated, too easy to slip OT so I'll > resist the temptation to continue debate and hope we can agree to spare > the unicode list further pain! I absolutely agree. As you get some time, perhaps you could inform us on issues directly related to hieroglyphics. I would be most interested. or should I perhaps be checking the archives? /|/|ike
Re: Glyph Stance
Title: RE: Glyph Stance My original reply was about the question of ancient scripts that used alternate glyph poses - I suggested this issue is worth thinking about generically, not just on a proposal by proposal basis for individual scripts. As one of the small number actively working on software for Egyptian scripts and in contact with that user community, I have a practical interest in appropriate plain text representations rather than a desire to debate abstracts. I'm not very interested personally in the application to modern scripts, the mention of Latin mirroring in advertising was to point out that it *may* also be an issue for anyone who is. Your opinions below on the semantics of non-standard typography and the purpose of advertising - as you indicated, too easy to slip OT so I'll resist the temptation to continue debate and hope we can agree to spare the unicode list further pain! Bob Richmond Saqqara Technology From: Mike Ayers, Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:53 PM Hopefully this doesn't veer OT, but let's see if we have agreement or not... From: saqqara Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM > In the case of Toys R Us, stating the R is incorrect is > a value judgement.. If one is speakinging in terms of English orthography, then this is not a value judgement, it is a simple statement of fact. The "R" is turned backwards to evoke the backwards letters often written by children still learning to read and write. > You cannot presume as fact these constructions are 'to get attention', they If they're advertising? No, I feel pretty safe making a universal statement that the purpose of advertising is to get attention. Do you really consider this controversial? > may be to produce a more pleasing symmetry or communicate meaning, just as > the Egyptians had a different notion of writing than is supported by our > more functional alphabetic scripts. Although my gut feeling agrees with > yours on plain text implications for Latin script, I haven't studied the > subject in depth so I may well be wrong. We're talking about my only language here. There is no implicit meaning gained by glitching characters other than "buy X" or "subscribe to belief Y", which does not add meaning to the words, just the letters that are glitched. Nor does the glitching improve symmetry - it destroys it, which is why it gets attention - it stand out precisely because it is wrong.
RE: Glyph Stance
Title: RE: Glyph Stance Hopefully this doesn't veer OT, but let's see if we have agreement or not... From: saqqara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM > In the case of Toys R Us, stating the R is incorrect is > a value judgement.. If one is speakinging in terms of English orthography, then this is not a value judgement, it is a simple statement of fact. The "R" is turned backwards to evoke the backwards letters often written by children still learning to read and write. > You cannot presume as fact these constructions are 'to get attention', they If they're advertising? No, I feel pretty safe making a universal statement that the purpose of advertising is to get attention. Do you really consider this controversial? > may be to produce a more pleasing symmetry or communicate meaning, just as > the Egyptians had a different notion of writing than is supported by our > more functional alphabetic scripts. Although my gut feeling agrees with > yours on plain text implications for Latin script, I haven't studied the > subject in depth so I may well be wrong. We're talking about my only language here. There is no implicit meaning gained by glitching characters other than "buy X" or "subscribe to belief Y", which does not add meaning to the words, just the letters that are glitched. Nor does the glitching improve symmetry - it destroys it, which is why it gets attention - it stand out precisely because it is wrong. /|/|ike
Re: Glyph Stance
Title: Re: Glyph Stance From Mike Ayers: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:34 AM > Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for > Unicode admitting > mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only > occurs in some ancient scripts but also in modern Latin > usage, most notably > in advertising. ...in which case it is being deliberately written incorrectly in order t get attention. Advertising is not plain text - not even remotely. /|/|ike I am not advocating the introduction of such modfiers, simply that a case can be made. When and if someone makes such a proposal, with adequate presentation of evidence, I'll judge on its merits. Harshly I expect, I heartily dislike the notion of control or modfier codes unless proven absolutely unavoidable. In the case of Toys R Us, stating the R is incorrect is a value judgement.. You cannot presume as fact these constructions are 'to get attention', they may be to produce a more pleasing symmetry or communicate meaning, just as the Egyptians had a different notion of writing than is supported by our more functional alphabetic scripts. Although my gut feeling agrees with yours on plain text implications for Latin script, I haven't studied the subject in depth so I may well be wrong.
Re: Glyph Stance
Title: Re: Glyph Stance > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of saqqara > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:34 AM > Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for > Unicode admitting > mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only > occurs in some ancient scripts but also in modern Latin > usage, most notably > in advertising. ...in which case it is being deliberately written incorrectly in order t get attention. Advertising is not plain text - not even remotely. /|/|ike
Re: Glyph Stance
saqqara wrote: Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for Unicode admitting mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only occurs in some ancient scripts but also in modern Latin usage, most notably in advertising. The fact that Old Latin already requests a glyph transformation according to bidi context supports the view this is not entirely inconsistent with Unicode philosophy. Mirroring (sometimes horizontal, sometimes vertical) occurs occasionally in some Tibetan texts - and where it occurs it is significant to the meaning of the text in a symbolic sense. (The text would have a different symbolic meaning if the mirrored Tibetan stack was not mirrored). - Chris
Re: Glyph Stance
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs give possibly the clearest exposition of what is involved here. Glyph direction (almost) always followed the text direction. RTL was the standard, but LTR sometimes where the purpose suited. TTB commonplace. A monumental inscription may use all permutations. This basic behaviour is compatible with the Unicode treatment of 'Old Italic'. Modern expositions of texts usually write LTR for pragmatic or pedagogical reasons. Mirroring of individual signs was used, for example, to produce a more visually pleasing symmetry in the writing of the names of certain kings and deities. Occasionally glyphs were rotated from their conventional pose. Incidentally Hieroglyphs have been talked about in conjunction with Unicode since the beginning but difficulties, such as the character repertoire appropriate to a form in use for over 3000 years, seem to have held back making any progress. A situation that some of us hope will change over the next year or two. The wrong time to delve into a detailed discussion of this subject and issues related to plain text representation. It is certainly the case that a full treatment of the Hieroglyphic script involves considerations such as XML mark-up that are outside of the Unicode domain. Nevertheless there is a case (however strong or weak) for Unicode admitting mirroring and simple rotation transformations. The phenomenon not only occurs in some ancient scripts but also in modern Latin usage, most notably in advertising. The fact that Old Latin already requests a glyph transformation according to bidi context supports the view this is not entirely inconsistent with Unicode philosophy. Because such mechanisms are more general than a specific script such as Archaic Greek, a specific Unicode proposal may want to raise the points but no need for an ARCHAIC_GREEK_MIRROR qualifier. IMO this functionality would be better introduced as a generic feature if appropriate and UTC are amenable, not on a script by script basis. Bob Richmond Saqqara Technology From: "Dean Snyder" May 25, 2004 8:19 PM > > Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be > flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the > direction of the writing stream. > > How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same > script be dealt with in Unicode and in a Unicode proposal? >
Re: Glyph Stance
At 12:19 PM 5/25/2004, Dean Snyder wrote: Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the direction of the writing stream. How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same script be dealt with in Unicode and in a Unicode proposal? Change in orientation of the glyphs that's based on the writing direction should not be encoded via character codes. If it can't be determined automatically by a layout engine (as for mirrored characters) then explicit markup would be needed. Change in orientation of glyphs that are used to express differences in meaning are a candidate for encoding via character codes (vz. Arrows, phonetic symbols, inverted A and E for quantifiers, etc.). A./
RE: Glyph Stance
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Dean Snyder > Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be > flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the > direction of the writing stream. > > How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same > script be dealt with in Unicode and in a Unicode proposal? If you’re talking about what happens in boustrophedon text, versus then I’d treat it as a presentation issue, not an encoding issue. IMO, it would be a serious problem if you have to encode an alpha using a distinct character just because it happened to come (with a given text size and page metrics) on the RTL run of boustrophedon layout rather than a LTR run. At the *very most*, you might propose control characters that can be used to distinguish whether characters in a given run of text should be rotated or mirrored if part of a RTL line, but even there I would be inclined to leave that to higher-level processing and protocols. If you’re talking about variations among archaic documents in how particular letters are written, apart from line direction issues, e.g. versus then you might have a case for proposing variation-selector sequences. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division <><><><>
Re: Glyph Stance
Dean Snyder asked: > Archaic Greek exhibits variable glyph stance, that is, glyphs can be > flipped horizontally or even vertically, usually dependent upon the > direction of the writing stream. > > How should variable glyph stance for the same characters in the same > script be dealt with in Unicode and in a Unicode proposal? TUS 4.0, p. 340 (available online): "If the default directionality of the [Old Italic] script is overridden to produce a right-to-left presentation, the glyphs in Old Italic fonts should also be mirrored from the representative glyphs shown in the code charts. This kind of behavior is not uncommon in archaic scripts; for example, archaic Greek letters may be mirrored when written right to left in boustrophedon." That is how it should be dealt with in Unicode. And there is no point in making a Unicode proposal to do otherwise, as the UTC has shown no interest in treating glyph mirroring in multiple directionality layouts as anything other than concerns for higher-level protocols. --Ken
